Basic Features


DFI CFX3200-DR Features
CPU Interface Socket 939 Athlon64
Chipset ATI RD580 Northbridge - ULi M1575 Southbridge
Bus Speeds 0 to 500 in 1MHz Increments
Memory Speeds DDR200,240,266,280,300,333,360,400
(433,466,500 with Rev. E AMD)
PCIe Speeds 100 to 150 in 1MHz Increments
PCI/AGP Fixed at 33/66
Core Voltage Auto, 0.8V to 1.55V in 0.025V increments
PLUS VOLTAGE x
101.4%, 102.9%, 104.3%, 105.8%, 107.2%, 108.6%, 110.0%, 111.5%, 113.0%, 114.4%, 115.8%, 117.3%, 118.7%, 120.2%, 121.6% (Maximum vCore 1.88V)
CPU Clock Multiplier 4x-25.0x in 0.5X increments
DRAM Voltage 2.06v to 4.15v in .01v to .03v increments
HyperTransport Frequency 1000MHz (1GHz)
(Stable in overclocking to 1500+ HT)
HyperTransport Multiplier Auto, 1X to 5X
Northbridge Over-Voltage: Auto, Disabled, Enabled
Enabled adds 3 additional voltage options below
NB Core Voltage 1.21v, 1.34v, 1.47v, 1.60v
NB Analog Voltage 1.21v, 1.34v, 1.47v, 1.60v
HyperTransport Bus Voltage 1.21v, 1.34v, 1.47v, 1.60v
SB PCI Express Voltage 1.8v, 1.85v, 1.9v, 1.95v
GFX1/2 (PCIe) Link Width X16,x12,x8,x4,x2,x1
GFX and/or SB Payload 64,32, or 16 Bytes
Delay GFX Reset 0 to 200mS in 1mS increments
Delay GPP Reset 0 to 200mS in 1mS increments
GFX 1 and/or 2 Slot Power Limit 0 to 250 watts in 1 watt increments
GPP Slot Power Limit 0 to 250 watts in 1 watt increments
+10% Extra Current GFX1,GFX2,GPP, and/or SB
RD580 HT PLL Speed Auto, High Speed, Low Speed
HT Bus NMOS Drive Strength 00-31 in 1 increments (32 Settings)
HT Bus PMOS Drive Strength 00-31 in 1 increments (32 Settings)
HT Bus Receiver Drive Strength 00-31 in 1 increments (32 Settings)
AMD Cool'n'Quiet Auto, Disable
Cool'n'Quiet Max FID Auto, 8.0x to 13x in 0.5x increments
Memory Slots Four 184-pin DDR DIMM Slots
Dual-Channel Configuration
Regular Unbuffered or ECC Memory to 4GB Total
Built-In Memory Test Disabled, Enabled
DQS Skew Control Increase (+) or Decrease (-) -255 to 255 in 1 increments
Expansion Slots 2 PCIe X16
2 PCIe X1
3 PCI Slots
Onboard SATA/RAID 4 SATA2 Drives by ULi M1575 (RAID 0,1,1+0,5,JBOD)
4 SATA Drives by Silicon Image 3114 (RAID 0,1,0+1,JBOD)
Onboard IDE/IDE RAID Two Standard ATA133/100/66 (4 drives)
Onboard USB 2.0/IEEE-1394 8 USB 2.0 ports supported by ULi M1575
2 Firewire by VIA VT6307
Onboard LAN PCIe Gigabit by Marvel Yukon 88E8052
PCIe Gigabit by Marvel Yukon 88E8053
Onboard Audio Azalia HD Karajan Audio Module powered by Realtek ALC882 codec
BIOS Revision Award 417 (4/17/06)


There is a very good reason that the Basic Features chart is the largest we have ever created for a review. DFI has a reputation for providing a huge array of adjustments on their enthusiast-oriented motherboards, and it normally is a challenge to describe the range of adjustments available on DFI motherboards. The CFX3200-DR takes that to a new level, however, with the widest and finest adjustments ever seen on a production motherboard. Despite the size of the expanded features table, we still couldn't include everything you can adjust on this DFI. This will be welcomed news to those that want to test and control every aspect of their computing experience.



DFI uses the familiar Award BIOS to control the DFX3200. Most adjustments of interest to overclockers and enthusiasts will be found under the "Genie BIOS Setting" sub-menu. Adjustments are so extensive they require 2 pages for base options.





Additional submenus under the Genie Settings include a full range of DRAM controls, with every setting for menu you could imagine - and a few more you probably didn't even know existed. These include skew control with 511 adjustment levels (+/- 255 steps).



DRAM drive strength includes 31 discrete levels of drive strength. No one will ever complain about lack of control on the DFI CFX3200. We are fans of extensive adjustment options in the BIOS, but the DFI may take things too far for some enthusiasts. There need to be more auto settings that work for the great majority of users. Users can then go deeper if they choose, with confidence the "auto" settings will get them going.

Since the CFX3200 was first received there have been several BIOS revisions. The shipping BIOS had issues with many memory types and would not even boot with some memories. The BIOS used in this review, the 417, worked well with almost any memory we had for testing, but it took several revisions to get there. As with past DFI boards you will likely find a huge number of custom BIOS revisions floating around that have been developed to work best with one hot memory or another. This allows you to squeeze the last bit of performance out of any memory with the DFI, but it can sometimes be a daunting challenge if you are running a memory that is not the hottest DRAM of the week.





"Advanced Features", "PCIe Configuration" is another submenu loaded with tweaks to squeeze a bit more from the board. These include the ability to set the link width of the two X16 ports, custom control of slot resets, and fully adjustable slot wattage from 0 to 250 watts. You can also set peer to peer writes between graphics slots which is reported to be a requirement for running SLI on an ATI chipset board, and boost current to slots and the Southbridge. Many are reporting that adjustments in this sub-menu can allow a bit more performance from your graphics system.

We have just scratched the surface on the extensive CFX3200-DR BIOS. There are already guides appearing on several forums and we would suggest that you look more deeply at one of these tweak guides if you want to know more about setting up this DFI board for best performance with a particular memory or graphics card setup.

Board Layout Overclocking
Comments Locked

25 Comments

View All Comments

  • rqle - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link

    "...breathlessly waiting for DFI's AM2 and Conroe motherboards."
    Great board, but not sure where this new mainboard will fit in since AM2 is coming, many can opt for the nforce expert if they need a board before AM2.

    hoping AM2 version is in the works and will be release soon as well.
  • electronox - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link

    *sigh*

    as far as gaming benchmarks go, what we really need to learn to do is to focus on the lowest framerates rather than the highest framerates (or even the average framerate). fink, anand, and co., you guys offer a progressive tech-journalism and no doubt have thought about what FPS performance really means.

    in its most important application, FPS performance means the ability to convey a smooth, fluid visual experience without noticeable dips or jerks in motion. sadly, with the way things are marketed now, the overall fluidity of gaming is sacrificed to reach those peak framerates we all obsess about in our benchmarking suites.

    as a long time gamer and enthusiast-sector consumer, i wish such high profile websites as yours would pay more attention to the worst parts of FPS gaming - the parts of the game where the intensity of in-game content is notched up, but often our video settings must be turned down in order to prevent epileptic siezures. such media attention might, in turn, lead industry developers to optimize their drivers for this exceedingly common problem which, in my opinon, is just as easily quantifiable and ever bit as important as average FPS performance.

    my thoughts, electronox.
  • Dfere - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link

    I have to agree. I make good money, but I no longer have the time to play with bleeding edge components and do modding. I know this is an enthusiast site, but at least for me , and I think a large amount of readers, an analysis of the max you might get out of a bleeding edge system is not all the value your site brings. A lot of posts by the readers show they have mid range systems. Thus I can only agree that an analysis of the FPS "issues" described above with a mid range system would help readers identify what would best go with their current system, not just a top of the line upgrade. I know your testing tries to determine , for example, CPU limits or GPU limits...... but it really only does so on bleeding edge systems..... and these comments were already mirrored in the latest AGP vid card releases......(why compare a new AGP card with new processor when most AGP owners have 754 systems.... etc)
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link

    I think it all depends on what game you're talking about, and how the impact is felt in the fluidity of the FPS score. These days, the vast majority of first-person shooters have a pretty consistent FPS, at least in normal gaming. In benchmarks, you're often stressing the games in a somewhat unrealistic sense -- playing back a demo at three or four times the speed at which it was recorded. Why does that matter? Well, depending on the game engine, loading of data can occur in the background without actually slowing performance down much, if at all. In a time demo, you don't generally get that capability, since everything moves much faster.

    There are several other difficulties with providing minimum frame rates. Many games don't report instantaneous frames per second and only provide you with the average score. (Doom 3, Quake 4, Call of Duty 2, Half-Life 2, Day of Defeat: Source all generate scores automatically, but don't provide minimum and maximum frame rates.) If we notice inconsistent frame rates, we do generally comment on the fact. About the only game where I still notice inconsistent frame rates is Battlefield 2 with only 1GB of RAM -- at least on a system of this performance level. (I suppose I should throw in Oblivion as well.)

    Sure, we could use tools like FRAPS together more detailed information, but given that there's a limited amount of time to get reviews done, would you rather have fewer games with more detailed stats, or more games with average frame rates? Realistically, we can't do both on every single article. Our motherboard reviews try to stay consistent within motherboards, our processor reviews do the same within CPU articles, and the same goes with graphics cards and other areas. If we have an article where we look at results from one specific game, we will often use that to establish a baseline metric for performance, and readers that are interested in knowing more about the benchmark can refer back to that game article.

    Average frame rates are not the be-all, end-all of performance. However, neither are they useless or meaningless. we run into similar problems if we report minimum frame rates -- did the minimum frame rate occur once, twice, frequently? As long as people understand that average frame rates are an abstraction representing several layers of performance, than they can glean meaning from the results. You almost never get higher average frame rates with lower minimum frame rates, or conversely lower average frame rates with higher minimum frame rates -- not in a single game. In the vast majority of benchmarks, an increase in average frame rate of 10 FPS usually means that minimum frame rates have gone up as well -- maybe not 10 FPS, but probably 7 or 8 FPS at least.

    In the end, without turning every article into a treatise on statistics, not to mention drastically increasing the complexity of our graphs, it's generally better to stick with average frame rates. Individual articles may look at minimum and maximum frame rates as well, but doing that for every single article that uses a benchmark rapidly consumes all of our time. Are we being lazy, or merely efficient? I'd like to think it's the latter. :-)

    Regards,
    Jarred Walton
    Hardware Editor
    AnandTech.com
  • OvErHeAtInG - Monday, May 8, 2006 - link

    Good answer :) Also I think that minimum framerates (while very important in gameplay) are much more impacted by the videocard used. With a motherboard review, we're much more concerned with overall performance, which is exactly what you gave us with the avg. framerate numbers...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now